Minnesota column on IRV. Click here.

This is great news for the UK Green Party!  They’ve shown that Greens can succeed even in an antiquated electoral system.  Caroline Lucas might even end up being part of the coalition government.The one concern I have is with the zombies who are voting for Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality.  I’m kind of leery about extending voting rights to the undead, especially when they’re trying to eat us!Caroline Lucas, Green: 31.3%Nancy Platts, Labour: 28.9%Charlotte Vere, Conservative: 23.7%Bernadette Millam, Liberal Democrat: 13.8%Nigel Carter, UK Independence Party: 1.8%Ian Fyvie Socialist Labour Party: 0.3%Soraya Karam, Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality: 0.1%Leo Atreides, Independent: 0.05%http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/05/06/green-party-wins-seat-in-uk-parliament-for-first-time/ 

Courtesy of GreenPartyWatch.org :

 Carol Marin is a big time political columnist for the Chicago Sun Times and is the political editor for the NBC-Chicago affiliate. She recently wrote a sweet articleon the Illinois Green Party in her last column in the Sun Times. This is a pretty significant story considering Marin is well respected in the Chicago mainstream media.

Discontented Voters Could Go Green

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATEShttp://www.gp.orgFor Immediate Release:Wednesday, January 13, 2010Contacts:Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.orgStarlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.orgGreens support Asa Gordon’s action, calling it a demand for fair elections, voters’ rights, and racial justiceGreen Party Speakers Bureau: Greens available to speak on electoral reform and democracy:http://www.gp.org/speakers/speakers-democratic.phpWASHINGTON, DC — Oral arguments for a major voting rights civil action filed by Green Party leader Asa Gordon, originally scheduled to take place in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (No. 09-5142) on Thursday, January 14, 2010, has been canceled.Mr. Gordon can be contacted at 202 635-7926. Documents, links, and other materials related to the action are available online (http://www.electors.us). Mr. Gordon’s prepared oral argument, with an excellent brief summary of the civil action’s defense of the constitutional right to cast an equal and effective vote, is now posted online (http://mapxiv2usc6.free0host.com/ORAL-RAP.pdf).According to a court order issued on January 11, “The court concludes, on its own motion, that oral argument will not assist the court in this case. Accordingly, the court will dispose of the appeal without oral argument on the basis of the record and the presentations in the briefs. See Fed. R. App. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j).”Gordon v. Biden seeks enforcement of the US Constitution’s ‘Mal-Apportionment Penalty’ (14th Amendment, Section 2), which mandates a reduction of a state’s presidential electors and congressional representatives (”the basis of representation therein shall be reduced”) if “the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States… is denied… or in any way abridged.”The civil action, Gordon v. Biden (formerly Gordon v. Cheney), addresses the antidemocratic mal-apportionment of Electoral College votes, voter dilution by race and/or party affiliation with the popular vote misrepresented by the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes.Mr. Gordon (http://www.gp.org/speakers/detail.php?ID=29), chair of the DC Statehood Green Party’s Electoral College Task Force and executive director of the Douglass Institute of Government, filed his civil action to protect the voting rights of presidential electors and the voters they represent in the US District Court (1:08-cv-01294) on July 28, 2008. His reply brief (http://mapxiv2usc6.free0host.com/APPELLANT%27S%20REPLY%20BRIEF_map.pdf) was filed with the court on November 6 and final brief submitted on November 27 (http://mapxiv2usc6.free0host.com/APPELLANT%27S%20FINAL%20BRIEF.pdf).The Green Party has supported Mr. Gordon’s civil action, calling it a demand for fair elections, for the right of every voter to have his or her vote counted in a national election, and for racial justice. For more information, see the Green Party’s December 21, 2009 press release announcing the originally scheduled oral arguments (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=275).MORE INFORMATIONGreen Party of the United States http://www.gp.org202-319-7191, 866-41GREENGreen candidate database and campaign information:http://www.gp.org/elections.shtmlGreen Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtmlGreen Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakersGreen Party ballot access page http://www.gp.org/2008-electionsGreen Party Livestream Channel http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyusGreen Party press releases“Oral arguments for Green leader’s Electoral College Mal-Apportionment civil action (Gordon v. Biden) to be heard in court on Jan. 14, 2010″ (December 21, 2009)http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=275“Greens launch effort against Electoral College manipulation of presidential elections” (August 5, 2008)http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=85“Greens: Enforce 14th Amendment’s ‘Right to Vote’ Provision” (October 18, 2004)http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_18_04.htmlGreen Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United StatesFall 2009 issue now onlinehttp://gp.org/greenpages-blog~ END ~

Members of the Green Party work daily recruiting candidates, educating voters, lobbying their local and state governments, serving on local boards and city councils, and lately, challenging obstructive and unequal election and campaigning laws in court.  Below is a round-up of some the latest legal moves and victories won by state Green Parties across the country.  Your support of the Green Party on all levels is vital if we are going to continue to work for better election laws and candidate recruitment.ArkansasThe Green Party of Arkansas, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court against the Secretary of State of Arkansas.  Even though the party elected a member to the state legislature and won more than 20% in several federal races, the state has moved to decertify the party for lack of support.  The lawsuit states that the “state’s decertification statute violates rights guaranteed to [the Green Party of Arkansas] by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution”.Mark Swaney, Coordinator of the Green Party of Arkansas, emphasized the importance of ballot access for the Green Party in Democrat-dominated Arkansas, noting that “we are quite literally fighting for freedom and democracy against a conservative Democratic party machine that can, and usually does, see to it that the people of Arkansas have no say whatsoever on election day”.New MexicoIn May of this year, the New Mexico Green party filed suit against the state, which had ceased recognizing the Green Party as a qualified political party.  The GPNM’s lawsuit claims, among other points, that “The State has no justifiable interest in limiting voter choices to the candidates of the major [Republican and Democratic] parties,” that the state has “no constitutional authority to limit the time available for minor party candidates to obtain petition signatures for the office of U.S. Representative,” and that state law “Unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of major parties and against minor parties in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution”.PennsylvaniaThe Green Party of Pennsylvania joined with the Constitution and Libertarian Parties of Pennsylvania to file a lawsuit challenging several aspects of election law.  According to Ballot Access News, the lawsuit challenges “Pennsylvania’s unique system of charging candidates and parties for the costs of checking their petitions…It also challenges the careless way in which some counties count write-ins and others don’t, and the arbitrary manner in which the state tallies write-ins for some candidates and not others, and finally it challenges the requirement that a party have approximately 1,000,000 registered voters before it can be on the November ballot without having to petition for its nominees.”This lawsuit is a result of Carl Romanelli’s disqualification from the race for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania’s 2006 election.  After turning in many thousands of signatures to win access to the ballot, his petition was rejected and he was charged $85,000 by the state for attempting to qualify to run for public office. Carl Romanelli has continued to try to convince the court to drop this fee, last filing a new petition with the court in August of this year.The hearing for the Green Party’s follow-up lawsuit is scheduled for later this month.FloridaThe Florida Green Party is uncovering a case of potential abuse of the political system through a lawsuit to uncover the backgrounds of the “Florida Five”.  In 2008, five registered members of the Florida Green Party filed to run for state legislature, despite being unknown to the Green Party.  Suspecting that these mystery candidates were acting in coordination with the Republican Party, Florida Greens filed lawsuits to probe the campaign finance records of the mystery candidates, in order to trace the source of their filing fees.Earlier this month, the court began calling the five mystery candidates to depositions to begin piecing together the background behind their campaigns.  With the court’s help, the Florida Green Party continues to probe the events of the 2008 elections and seek the truth about the candidates that appeared on the Green Party ballot line.Connecticut  The Connecticut Green Party recently won a significant decision against Connecticut’s public campaign finance system, which the court ruled was unfairly awarding public finances to major party candidates while burdening the Green Party and other parties with inordinate obstacles to public funds.A U.S. District Court judge ruled that Connecticut’s public financing scheme had  created a “discriminatory burden” for minor parties and had unfairly inflated the public campaign funds that major parties were awarded.  “We’re very pleased”, said Mike DeRosa, co-chair of the Connecticut Green Party, that “the court ruled that real campaign finance reform requires a level playing field.”The Green Party of the United States and our state Green Parties need your support to continue working to level the playing field in court.  We don’t take money from real estate companies, private health insurance providers, or lobbyists.  In fact, we don’t take ANY corporate money because we think corporate money in politics is wrong.  If you want to help us work for fairer elections, please help us today.  Your donation to the Green Party will help us make sure we have a strong Green Party today and into the future.

You can help us reach the goal we set in July at our national meeting of funding our operations with the help of 500 sustainers giving $10,000 a month by the end of 2009.  Click here to become a sustaining donor to the Green Party today!Your gift of any amount will help to strengthen our voice so that we can make our vision a reality.  With your help we can provide support for candidates and spread the Green message.  If you have given recently, please consider giving more.  And, if you haven’t given in some time, please make today the day you give.Email: gpinfo@gp.org

(Distributed by the Green Party of the United States, http://www.gp.org)

For Immediate Release
September 1, 2009

Contact:
Carl Romanelli, 570-574-0829

Frustrated by yet another setback in the Pennsylvania Courts, Green Party US Senate candidate, Carl Romanelli is now asking President Obama to schedule Beer Summit II in order to attempt to resolve his ongoing saga. “We have tried everything possible in order to see justice here in Pennsylvania and we are running out of options,” Romanelli offered.

He is referring to his long ordeal in the Pennsylvania Courts where, despite his gathering and submitting more voter signatures than any candidate in Pennsylvania’s history, Romanelli was not only removed from the 2006 election ballot; but now has to pay more than $80,000.00 in costs and fees for the pleasure of being the victim of such a process.

“It is time that the President weighed in on this, so I propose that he invite Senator Casey and me to the White House for a beer in an attempt to work matters out,” Romanelli suggested.

The situation in Pennsylvania is one of the strangest scenarios in all of politics, as it is now well known that in order to remove Romanelli from the 2006 ballot the lawyers for Bob Casey brought their challenge to the Green Party signatures by way of an illegal, taxpayer-funded process. The scandal has been dubbed Bonusgate as participants were not only providing attorneys for Casey with their work product while on state time and in state offices using state resources, but these employees also received state-funded bonuses for their effort.

In his July 10, 2008 Presentment, which led to the arrest of ten legislative staffers and two former state representatives, the Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett says, “The two most outstanding examples of misappropriation of taxpayer resources in petition challenges were found in the challenges of Ralph Nader, for President in 2004, and Carl Romanelli, for US Senate in 2006.” (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Harrisburg-Bonus-GJ-Presentment.pdf)

As it turns out, legislative employees in 2004 and 2006 would be given a crash course in signature challenge by lawyers representing Democratic candidates that wanted Romanelli and Nader off of the ballot. Then these workers would provide the work to attorneys from the law firms of Thorp, Reed, and Armstrong and Reed, Smith out of Pittsburgh. These attorneys later would file the petition challenge in the hope of having independent and third party candidates removed from the ballots in question. Thorp, Reed and Armstrong is the firm used against Romanelli in the ongoing court battles and Attorney Clifford Levine of the firm lists himself as election law counsel for Bob Casey for Senate and deputy counsel for Kerry-Edwards. Many of the legislative employees providing what became the work product for the attorneys were given hefty bonuses for their contribution. Information concerning this process is now public record as a few Preliminary Hearings for various arrested employees has provided detail and insight into this scheme.

“One would think that the commission of crimes against a working class candidate would be enough to get the attention of the Courts, but such is not the case in Pennsylvania. All along I have said that there was nothing wrong with the signatures the Greens submitted in 2006, and there wasn’t. So the Democrats had to rely on their friends who wear robes to finish the job,” Romanelli asserts. “The entire judicial system is corrupted here in Pennsylvania, and I should know because I come from Luzerne County where the disgraced, ‘kids for cash’ judges come from,” he added. “So, since the judges are too crooked for a citizen to use the legal system, we need another way to resolve this shameful persecution and I thought Beer Summit II would be a novel approach. Perhaps then we can bring this nightmare to an end. This would be a big deal for me considering I don’t even drink beer.”

In the absence of Mr. Obama agreeing to a summit at the White House, then Romanelli has offered to play Bob Casey in a game of one-on-one basketball with Romanelli’s political and financial freedom on the line. “As in politics, Casey should have the advantage on the basketball court. He stands at about six feet, three inches; I am five feet five inches; he has access to the best gyms in the country, I still play in schoolyards; and he is a few years younger than I am. Of course, if Casey plays basketball like he plays politics then I’d expect he would hide and send the Philadelphia 76ers starting five to represent him at the game in order to vanquish any hope I had in winning a fair contest.” Romanelli suggested.

“In this instance I feel the sports analogy is appropriate, as Republicans and Democrats are much like pro wrestlers: They point fingers at each other and call each other names when the cameras are rolling, then toast the dummies that keep them rich and powerful as they inhabit the grand halls of, what is supposed to be, the people’s government.”

Green Party of Pennsylvania: http://www.gpofpa.org

~ END ~

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATEShttp://www.gp.orgFor Immediate Release:Friday, April 10, 2009Contacts:Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.orgStarlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.orgCourt says plaintiff lacks standing, but the demand for Electoral College reform based on the Mal-Apportionment Penalty remains legally valid for a future civil actionDemocratizing the Electoral College web site: historical background, all court pleadings, Election 2008 graphics, video clips http://www.electors.usGreen Party Speakers Bureau: Green leaders available to speak on major issueshttp://www.gp.org/speakersWASHINGTON, DC — The US District Court for the District Columbia has issued a ruling that, while dismissing the plaintiff for lack of standing, did not reject the validity of his arguments challenging the Electoral College based on the Mal-Apportionment Penalty clause of the 14th Amendment.On July 28, 2008, plaintiff Asa Gordon (Speakers Bureau page: http://gp.org/speakers/detail.php?ID=29) of the DC Statehood Green Party filed his ‘Democratization of the Electoral College’ civil action against the manipulation of presidential elections inherent in the malapportionment of Electoral College votes. See “Greens launch effort against Electoral College manipulation of presidential elections,” Green Party press release, August 5, 2008 (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=85).”This, for all intent and purposes, is a profound legal victory for reform of the electoral college to reflect the popular majority will of the American electorate in future presidential elections,” said Mr. Gordon.The court issued its order (Case 1:08-cv-01 294-HHK) and memorandum opinion on March 26. The ruling dismissed Mr. Gordon as the title plaintiff in the civil action for lack of standing.But the ruling on Gordon v. Cheney, now Gordon v. Biden, provides a blueprint for future progressive civil actions to reform the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote in presidential elections.”I am very pleased with the ruling, but unsatisfied to the extent that I plan to appeal what I deem to be the court’s error to deny me personal standing,” said Asa Gordon. “The civil action was not only motivated by my personal standing as an injured voter, but the main objective was to determine the legal viability of the 14th Amendment’s Mal-Apportionment Penalty clause pleaded before the court that would democratize the Electoral College. The court granted the dismissal order predicated on a memorandum opinion that did not reject the constitutional arguments I pleaded before the court.”The District Court, citing case law precedents, ruled that “a pro se plaintiff… cannot adequately represent the interests of other class members.” The court granted the dismissal motion, stating: “Because Gordon’s alleged injury is not ‘fairly traceable’ to the Vice President’s actions, which in fact are purely ministerial, but rather is attributable to the actions of third-party states and state officials, he fails to satisfy the causation element of standing. Therefore, he is unable to prosecute this action.”The court’s memorandum opinion observes that Mr. Gordon “filed this action on July 28, 2008, against Richard Cheney, then the Vice President of the United States (’Vice President’), in his official capacity. In anticipation of the then-upcoming presidential election and the role that the Vice-President would play in the election by presiding over and certifying the official vote count of the US Electoral College, Gordon sought by this action to prevent the Vice-President ‘from presiding over the tabulation of ‘unbound electoral states’ who by practice, unsupported by state or federal statute, traditionally award Presidential Electors on a ‘winner-take-all basis’.” Mr. Gordon argued that the Vice President is the only government official who can consummate the miscounting of presidential electors.Mr. Gordon defended his strategy and standing by noting that he represents a class of voters, having served as a presidential elector for the DC Statehood Green Party in recent elections. Furthermore, he uniquely represents a related class of voters — those from the District of Columbia — who have no Representative or Senator in Congress who can raise an objection when the US Senate confirms a presidential election. Thus his only recourse was to petition the federal court for a remedy.”Civil actions like Asa Gordon’s represent the best hope for a legal remedy to engineered elections and the breakdown of our democracy. Few people have shown the dedication and perseverence that Asa has. I hope that his Electoral College challenge won’t end with the District Court’s recent decision,” said Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party’s 2008 candidate for President of the United States (http://www.gp.org/cynthia/index.php).Asa Gordon noted that Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), commenting on issues raised in the civil suit on December 8, 2004, said, “This is the most amazing proposition that has ever been brought forward… and if it is accurate it could change the whole outcome of the voting process in the United States, and we will take that under consideration… We, we eagerly embrace your suggestion.”"The only question that remains is whether the NAACP, ACLU, American Constitution Society, and American Bar Association will now follow the Green Party’s lead on civil actions that will enforce the constitutional provision compelling the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote,” added Mr. Gordon.Greens have consistently challenged the Electoral College’s validity as a reflection of the popular will in national elections. The Green Party’s national platform endorses a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and providing for the direct election of the president by instant runoff voting (http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#309649).MORE INFORMATIONGreen Party of the United States http://www.gp.org202-319-7191, 866-41GREENFax 202-319-7193Tally of Green election victories http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/election-results.htmlGreen candidate news http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/candidate-news.phpGreen candidate database for 2008 and other campaign information: http://www.gp.org/elections.shtmlGreen Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtmlGreen Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakersGreen Party ballot access page http://www.gp.org/2008-elections“Greens Push for Real Electoral Reforms at Carter-Baker Hearings, June 30″Green Party press release, June 27, 2005http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_06_27.shtml“The First 100 Days: What Would a Green Administration Look Like?” (video and text) http://www.gp.org/first100Green Pages, Vol. 13, No. 1The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United Stateshttp://gp.org/greenpages-blog~ END ~

February 17, 2009:     RCV Legislative Reception(President Green’s 30th Birthday)

February 26, 2009:    Greater Jefferson Davis Area Community Association’s Forum on the Proposed Ballpark and Creation of a Tax Authority.  Southside Community Services Building. Southside Plaza.  6:30.    

March   17, 2009:      Richmond School Board Forum. Moderator TBA.   

April  21, 2009:         Richmond City Council  Forum.  Moderator TBA. 

May 2009:                 Richmond City Council Budget Update

May  19, 2009:          Primary Candidates Forum(Local and Statewide). Moderator TBA. 

June 2009:                 3rd Annual Crusade Spring Fundraiser. Special Guest TBA

June  16, 2009:          RCV Election 2009 Meeting. Guest Speaker TBA  

All dates and locations are subject to change.  For additional information, please visit our website, www.richmondcrusadeforvoters.org  

Dear Friends,

At close of business last Friday evening, notification was given that the five bills introduced in the House of Delegates regarding Rights Restoration would be considered by the House Subcommittee on the Constitution around 8 am Monday, January 19, 2009.

WE NEED YOUR HELP!

A strong display of support will help these bills advance to the full committee of House Privileges & Elections.  If they fail to leave the subcommittee, we will miss our chance to have this important issue addressed during the 2009 Session of the General Assembly.  Furthermore, we will not be able to address this issue until the 2011 Session.

WHAT YOU CAN DO!

ATTEND THE HEARING - Your presence at the hearing will have a significant impact.  Though this is surprise notice, let’s provide this hearing with as much public input and attention possible.  The meeting will take place in the 5^th Floor West Conference Room of the General Assembly Bldg on 9^th and Broad.  Please contact me by email (amuse@acluva.org) or cell (804.721.5011) if you can attend.  Also, if you attend please arrange to arrive at the General Assembly Bldg by 7:30 am.

CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE – Never underestimate the power of a phone call.  Leave a message with the members of the committee and let them know (politely) that it’s time for Virginia to reform its harsh former felon disfranchisement statute.  Members are listed in the attached subcommittee notice and at end of email. 

SPREAD THE WORD – We are certain that you know others who care about this issue or have felt its impact.  Please forward this email to every individual you feel who would be equally, if not more, compelled to act.

Thank you for your time and attention.  A briefing paper about disfranchisement of former felons is attached along with a copy of the notice, brief explanations of the bills being considered, and copies of editorials supporting reform.  Thank you for your time and attention.  Don’t hesitate to contact me this weekend (804.721.5011) for more information.

House Privileges & Elections Subcommittee on the Constitution:

Del. William R. “Bill” Janis (Sub-Committee Chairman),  56^th District – (804) 698-1056

Del. Frank D. Hargrove, Sr.,  55^th District – (804) 698-1055

Del. John A. Cosgrove, 78^th District – (804) 698-1078

Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick, 52^nd District – (804) 698-1052

Del. Lacy E. Putney, 19^th District – (804) 698-1019

Del. Clarence E. “Bud” Phillips, 2^nd District – (804) 698-1002

Again, thank you.

Adisa Muse

Director

Virginia Voter Restoration Project

530 East Main Street, Suite 310

Richmond, Virginia  23219

(804) 644-8080

amuse@acluva.org